70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 1 of 15
IAC-19-D4.1.2 (52434)
Master Planning and Space Architecture for a Moon Village
Daniel Inocente* a, Colin Koop b, Georgi I. Petrov c, Jeffrey A. Hoffman d, Valentina Sumini e, Dr. Advenit
Makaya f, Marlies Arnhof g, Hanna Lakk h, Brigitte Lamaze i, Dr. Aidan Cowley j, David Binns k, Markus
Landgraf l, Piero Messina m, Claudie Haignere n
a Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, New York, NY,10005, [email protected]
b Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, New York, NY,10005, [email protected]
c Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, New York, NY,10005, [email protected]
d Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States, [email protected]
e MIT Media Lab, Responsive Environments - Space Exploration Initiative, United States, [email protected]
f European Space Agency (ESA), The Netherlands, [email protected]
g European Space Agency (ESA), The Netherlands, [email protected]
h European Space Agency (ESA), The Netherlands, [email protected]
i European Space Agency (ESA), Cologne, Germany, [email protected]
j European Space Agency (ESA), The Netherlands, [email protected]
k European Space Agency (ESA), Cologne, Germany, [email protected] l European Space Agency (ESA), Paris, France, [email protected]
m European Space Agency (ESA), Paris, France, [email protected]
n European Space Agency (ESA), Paris, France, [email protected]
* Corresponding Author
Abstract
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM), in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) and faculty of
Aerospace and Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), are working on space architecture
and master planning strategies for the first full-time human settlement on the Moon. One aspect of ESA’s space
exploration efforts in Low Earth Orbit, the Moon and Mars is to aim at “developing new concepts for international
exploration activities, encompassing novel cooperation opportunities open to all nations and industrial actors”. The partnership envisions future missions to the lunar surface that will be driven by cooperation and sustainable planning
strategies. The “Moon Village” idea presented by the ESA Director General is a vision for an open architecture based
on global cooperation among multiple nations and multiple partners combining their various expertise for the common
objective of enabling long-term exploration of the lunar surface. Fundamental to achieving this goal will be the
establishment of an infrastructure on the Moon, relying on a myriad of architectures and surface system capabilities.
As part of this larger effort, a strategic alignment with NASA’s 2018 Strategic Plan to “extend human presence deeper
into space and to the Moon for sustainable long-term exploration and utilization” provides an essential paradigm for
holistic thinking about humanities future in space. Advancement of new and emerging capabilities supported by
commercial expertise, transferring proven technologies toward addressing challenges in space will result in the
construction of an early outpost for safe, flexible and efficient human exploration. Achieving this initial goal would
produce operational experience for the planning and extensive development of an eventual sustainable and permanent
lunar ecosystem that will support a variety of human activities for scientific exploration, industrial development and commercial initiatives. The “Moon Village” aims to demonstrate the potential of an international private-public
partnership to advance human space exploration through cross-disciplinary cooperation. This paper presents a holistic
approach to planning lunar development, centered on the need for singular surface habitation units, designed as
adaptive multi-functional modules that will enable and support versatile surface operations. Multi-functional structural
concepts, optimized for performance, safety, and utility, leverage emerging technologies including a combination of
structural pressurized vessels, regolith structures for radiation shielding, and adaptive infrastructure planning
strategies. Located on the edge of Shackleton crater near the lunar south pole, the development maximizes In-Situ
Resource Utilization by proximity to presumed ice deposits and solar energy potential, using high elevation locations
with long periods of continuous solar irradiation. Phasing strategies are explored for evaluating the evolutionary steps
of the settlement to anticipate future ISRU-based experimental and construction activities. Only by expanding on the
capabilities and the cooperation of both commercial and government entities can we truly address large and micro scale-architectural systems for human settlements beyond Earth.
Keywords: (Space Architecture, Habitation, ISRU, Master Planning, Moon, Structures)
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 2 of 15
1. Introduction
In 2015, the Director General of the European Space
Agency (ESA), Johann-Dietrich Wörner, introduced the
concept of the “Moon Village” [1,2]. Inspired by the
unparalleled level of cooperation achieved in creating the
International Space Station (ISS), the Moon Village represents an extension of this paradigm to deep space
activities. The Moon Village envisions a model of growth
where many players combine resources to deploy a
common infrastructure on the Moon that can then support
a wide range of activities and missions. The vision has
sparked a renewed interest and mobilized commercial
and government energies toward returning humans to the
Moon and establishing a permanent settlement.
In this spirit Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM)
has partnered with the European Space Agency (ESA)
and faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
Media Lab to design a permanent human settlement
located at the lunar south polar region. This project is a
platform allowing us to build on the knowledge and
technologies developed for space applications.
Challenging both space and terrestrial architectures to
consider the relationships between human activities and
the resources which support them. Developing
architectural solutions for the Moon that will in turn
advance thinking about terrestrial concerns on Earth. The
challenges in solving how a human settlement might
evolve in the extreme conditions of space enables more intelligent methodologies for terrestrial utilization and
promises to directly impact how we approach challenges
on Earth. Conditions unique to the lunar environment,
such as reduced gravity, extreme thermal differentials,
high-energy solar exposure, cosmic radiation, high
velocity micrometeorite impact, abrasive-electrostatic
regolith, zero atmosphere and constrained human living
spaces need to influence the architectural design of an
integrated settlement (see Figure 1).
The partnership is grounded on the free exchange of
expertise and ideas to generate novel concepts which are supported by the creative, scientific and engineering
capabilities of each partner. ESA is providing expertise
from their various research and engineering facilities
including ESTEC, the European Astronaut Centre, and
ESA HQ. Retired NASA Astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman, on
the MIT Aero/Astro faculty, brings human spaceflight
experience to the team. Together with SOM’s extensive
experience in terrestrial applications and expertise in
architecture, structural and civil engineering, urban
planning, sustainable design, and digital design we will
bring real-world scenarios that maximize the potential of
the proposed holistic paradigm for a future lunar
settlement.
2. Site Selection and Masterplan
After half a dozen robotic missions in the past decade,
we are now fairly certain that both poles of the Moon hold large amounts of water and other volatiles in their
permanently shaded craters [3,4]. While the nature and
distribution of these resources is not yet determined, the
frozen volatiles hold tremendous industrial and scientific
opportunity as a local source of fuel, commodities and
development. The evidence points to the fact that the
current conditions at the poles have existed for a very
long time and thus is a treasure trove of stored samples
from the early solar system until the present day. This
combination of resources and scientific interest has made
the poles a source of great interest and a logical target for early human exploration.
A permanently inhabited Moon Village will be
humanity’s first effort in establishing an off-world
society. Historically, the initial act of setting up a new
settlement has very long-lasting effect on the resulting
society. Setting up the plan for the physical reality of the
settlement will play a role just as important as the social
setup and governance of the Moon Village.
The primary requirements for the design of a
settlement on an extra planetary surface are safety,
efficiency and the ability to incorporate development
with growth. Safety requires that there be several interconnected and individually pressurized elements. In
case of an accidental loss of pressure, a fire, or other
failure, there must be at least two means of egress from
every module. Furthermore, the loss of any one space
must not cut off functioning portions of the settlement
from each other. Efficiency is dictated by the shortage of
labor, materials, and energy associated with the large
distance from Earth. Expandability requires that the
pattern of development be easily repeatable and
expandable without compromising the qualities of the
structures that have already been completed. In order to establish the organizational principles of
the masterplan, the team has drawn inspiration from the
rich literature and experience of urban planning and
design. The precedents that were reviewed included grid
plans such as Roman military camps, Spanish cities in
Latin America laid out according to the “Law of the
Indies” and American Public Land Survey System, as
well as radial plans such as the Garden City design by the
English writer Ebenezer Howard [5].
The model that is best suited for the irregular terrain
at the lunar south pole while meeting the above criteria is
the idea of a Linear City, a planning idea first enunciated
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 3 of 15
by the Spanish planner Arturo Soria and popularized by
the Swiss architect Le Corbusier [6]. Arranging the
pressurized elements in two parallel bands that are
connected at regular intervals best achieves the goals of
safety, efficiency and expandability. The external zones
of the Moon Village can then also parallel the
development. This linear development has the additional
benefit of being flexible and easily adaptable to the terrain at the rim of Shackleton Crater [7].
We propose to locate the Moon Village along the rim
of Shackleton Crater near the South Pole. The layout of
the settlement will align with the rim of the crater in four
parallel bands of development (see Figure 2). The
Habitation Band will be comprised of the pressurized
habitats and will be located on the side closest to the
crater. A second band, called the Infrastructure Band,
will be comprised of spaces that will hold all the external
support equipment. A third band, named the Activities
Band, will be reserved as a staging area for the various stakeholders of the Moon Village. The energy generation
and transportation activities will be located in a zone
away from the crater wall [7].
Besides the physical infrastructure to keep lunar
inhabitants alive, every settlement also requires physical
symbols that give the Moon Village a sense of identity
and a sense of poetry. On the south pole, the Earth will
be visible in the same location in the sky just above the
horizon. To celebrate this view, we propose to leave a
portion of the rim in the direction of the Earth from the
Moon Village to be an undisturbed preserve that will remain free of human impact [7]. Thus, from the habitats,
there will always be a view of the Earth hanging above
the sweeping arch of the crater rim in the far distance and
a piece of undisturbed lunar surface in the near distance.
3. Habitat Design
Extra-terrestrial surface habitats are constrained in
terms of module design, dimensions and orientations to
comply with the selected launch vehicle, orbital assembly
(if required) and transfer, landing strategy and surface
transportation and deployment. Transportation payload envelope and mass limitations are major drivers of
critical design requirements. While it is necessary to
define a mission scenario and functional goals for a
habitat, the operational features such as level of
technological integration and safety will determine
performance and hardware requirements.
So far, the only extra-terrestrial surface habitat that
has been built and deployed is the Lunar Module (LM)
during the Apollo project. The LM provided space for
two astronauts for several days with a habitable volume
of 6.6 m3, using the Saturn V as launch vehicle [8]. A planetary architecture needs interfaces with transport and
landing vehicles, as well as EVA access determined by
the elevation of module interior entrance levels as well as
surface mobility unit requirements. The size, design and
configuration of the modules determine a variety of
utilization and operational effects, such as interior
habitable volume and its spatial and functional
optimization.
3.1 Parameters
The mission parameters of the concept are
characterized by a series of missions in which the
architecture is incrementally improved through
additional capabilities and mission durations. The main
habitat we envision will be a Class 2 prefabricated
structure as defined by Cohen [9,10]. An evolutionary
model to support the addition of increased activity and
industry can only be strategically organized by adaptive
methods which are informed by integrating the physical
mission parameters and future surface development
strategies into the design approach. The parametric relationship between the crew, systems and interfaces
provides a useful framework for providing a successful
infrastructure that can support any reasonable crew size
and duration within the safety and performance
considerations requirements.
The SOM designed vertical habitat known as One
Moon was developed with an emphasis on technology
development goals including structures, environmental
protection, crew systems, deployment and human
interfaces. In addition to these goals, we incorporated
considerations for requirements such as environmental control and life support systems, power, thermal and
extravehicular activities. Together, these systems are
meant to function as an integrated habitable unit designed
to support and facilitate the crew’s activities. We include
in the anticipated design considerations lunar activities
that are critical to the advancement of establishing a
permanent base and settlement. Activities on the Moon
will include both human and robotic exploration science
which is meant to gather information about geologic
conditions and resource availability. Lunar resource
development will provide knowledge and experience on
how to use resources in the lunar environment to produce oxygen, hydrogen, metals and various products from ice
water deposits, regolith and solar energy. Experiments
leading up to this will require intensive field work which
would benefit from habitation modules and strategies that
increase safety and performance, since frequent
extravehicular activity missions would be required.
Testing operational and surface technologies will be
primarily driven through crew-centered and teleoperated
methods. Crew-centered control of activities will be
conducted by astronauts using augmented teleoperation.
The architecture for these future activities will be determined by the duration, location and centralization of
mission operations. It will take a lot of equipment to
enable experimentation leading to large scale
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 4 of 15
development and the necessity of infrastructural elements
such as high data rate communication equipment, large
solar panel arrays, navigation relays, microwave power
beam system. Most of this equipment is cargo that can be
delivered ahead of long-term human missions.
Additionally, pressurized crew vehicles, teleoperated
robotic rovers and surface manipulation systems would
need to be delivered to facilitate assembly and construction of equipment. The solution to transporting
this much mass lies in reusable transportation that can
eventually be refuelled, perhaps eventually by taking
advantage of the resources available on the Moon.
Preconstructed habitats are a necessary part of
building a base methodically and sustainably. Our
designs and approach focus on the pre-emplacement of
habitats that eventually lead to the construction of larger
occupiable structures but first allow crew to access the
most critical sites. These habitats need to be designed
within transportation limits and should be fully functional when they are delivered to the mission site.
The transportation system limits the mass and scale
of a habitation system for performance and cost reasons
which are primary drivers for the selection of reusable
systems currently available and under development (as
shown in Table 1). For more than 40 years after the
Apollo program, the price of launch to orbit has been
estimated to be about $10,000 per kilogram ($10 million
per metric ton). Comparing this price to what SpaceX has
been able to achieve with reusable rockets at about
$2,000 per kilogram we see a clear advantage in reusability. We investigated the dynamic volume, mass
and dimensional limits of a variety of current and planned
reusable transportation systems, including SpaceX’s
Falcon Heavy, Blue Origin’s New Glenn launch vehicle
and the SpaceX Starship currently under development.
We then studied each fairings dynamic volume and
dimensional limits. The Falcon Heavy fairing is 13.1
meters tall and 5.2 meters in diameter, made of an
aluminium honeycomb core with carbon-fibre face sheets
fabricated in two-shells and assembled during
encapsulation. This vehicle has a payload capacity to
LEO of 63,800 kg (140,660 lb) and a dynamic volume of about 145 m3. The New Glenn offers a fairing that is 21.9
meters tall and 7 meters in diameter, which results in a
usable volume of 450 m3, twice that of any launch vehicle
currently in operation. It is designed to deliver a payload
of 45,000 kg (99,000 lb) to LEO and is projected to begin
launching payloads beginning in 2021. In September 27,
2019 SpaceX’s Elon Musk revealed the first prototype of
Starship MK1. The spacecraft has a diameter of 9 meters
and height of 50 meters will have the capacity to carry
more than 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to Earth orbit.
Reusability in space transportation will enable large payloads such as One Moon to be delivered affordably to
the lunar surface with cargo and crew (see Figure 3).
These reusable systems are all capable of carrying large
payloads to LEO from where fuelled delivery vehicles
will carry the first support and habitable systems to the
Moon.
Table 1. Flight Systems
Launch
Vehicle
Fairing
Length
Fairing
Cargo
Volume
Mass to
LEO
Mass
to
Moon
m m3 tons tons
Falcon Heavy
13.1 145 63.8 8.6
New
Glenn
21.9 450 45 7.6
SLS 19.1 145 90 12
Starship
Cargo
Approx.
30 + 1,500 + 100 + 100 +
3.2 Vertical Habitat
The pressurized habitats are being designed as
deployable multi-purpose modules. The first habitats
will have to house multiple functions in one module.
Subsequent iterations can be specialised for crew
accommodations, scientific laboratories, food production,
working, and touristic use. The diversity in functions underlines a fundamental need to remain flexible and
develop an adaptable architecture.
The habitats will be comprised of a pressurized
volume with numerous integrated systems including
docking capability, environmental control and life
support system (ECLSS), logistics management,
radiation mitigation, fire safety, crew health equipment,
scientific workstations and robotic control station. It will
sustain a crew of four to six. With an interoperable
interface, the modules will have a docking system that
can link to a rover or to pressurized connectors linking to other habitats.
Several important NASA reports, such as the
Synthesis Group Report [11], identified inflatable
structures as an enabling technology that would allow
lighter weight structures at a lower cost. NASA has been
experimenting with pneumatic or inflatable structures,
which resist tensile forces due to internal pressure with
flexible membranes, since the 1960s. Their main benefit
is to reduce mass and to be folded and compacted in
smaller volumes during launch and transport to the target
location. Other key features are reduced loads while
landing on the Moon or Mars and shorter manufacturing time [12].
The inflatable modules require a frame of rigid
elements that hold the internal structure together during
the large dynamic loads of launch, transfer, and landing
[13]. These rigid elements then serve as the attachment
points of the inflatable membrane. Most past designs
starting with NASA’s TransHab, place the rigid elements
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 5 of 15
in a central core [14,15]. This configuration efficiently
packs the structure and the mechanical systems in a
central location; however it leaves an awkward doughnut
shaped space for the humans to inhabit and does not
easily permit windows to be placed along the perimeter
structure. Here we propose an alternative configuration
of a composite rigid frame and deployable membrane.
The rigid elements are pushed out to the perimeter with the goal of leaving a unified central space that is more
flexible for human use and better experientially and
psychologically. Moreover, the presence of transparent
elements in the rigid frame will reduce psycho-social
stressors of living inside a confined environment for a
long-term [16]. Stressors for human spaceflight
associated with habitability, confinement, isolation can
lead to a degraded performance, feelings of
claustrophobia and lack of motivation [17]. The ducts
and chases for the ECLSS and electrical systems are
paired with the structural elements to create pillars of combined structure and mechanical systems.
Providing increased volume to accommodate a crew
of 4 for long-term missions of up to 500 days plus
contingency days presents us with the challenge of
designing an integrated habitat that can fit within the
payload volumetric and mass constraints of current and
near-term transportation technologies. To achieve this,
we devised a parametric methodology using
computational design technologies which allowed us to
test varying payload limits including those of the Falcon
Heavy, New Glenn and Starship. Following NASA’s STD 3001 Space Flight Human-System Standard we
identified safety, technical and performance constraints
at an early stage. This technical guide provided an
understanding of human capabilities, limitations and
functions while also incorporating architectural standards
to maximize performance and the human experience
The structural designs for the habitat include a hybrid
system composed of two key elements, the rigid
composite frame and inflatable structural shell. The rigid
structural frame consists of three columns (1200mm x
400mm) which are connected at the base and top. The
composite floor system to support gravity loads, spans between the perimeter columns and cantilevers out
between them. In contrast to other inflatable designs,
which centralize the structure and mechanical systems,
this system liberates the central area, providing large
double height volumes between levels for increased
mobility, programming, visibility and flexible
transportation of equipment. The perimeter columns also
include windows at each level for visibility and are
refined geometrically for structural performance during
pressurization of the inflatable shell. The structural
columns articulate those loads as concave geometry. Due to the increased complexity of operations and programs,
the advantage of a perimeter structural system is to
completely free the interior space, offering an adaptable
spatial configuration (see Figure 4). Located around the
vertical structural elements are mechanical shafts
supplying water, oxygen, power and communication
lines throughout the habitat. The mechanical system is
supported by the security of a high-performance structure
while also part of a continuous loop of shafts bringing
these systems to every level and space. The inflatable
shell is designed as a multi-layer system which includes a Nomex protection shield, a Vectran structural shell,
Combitherm, Nextel with insulation foam interlayers,
exterior protection shielding and micro-meteoroid &
orbital debris shielding protection. This entire assembly
is attached directly to the columns, with the structural
shell woven directly into the columns to provide
increased continuity in structure. The inflatable pressure
vessel Vectran restraint layer allows the habitat to
incorporate complex geometry that interfaces with rigid
structures such as airlock tunnels. Similar technology has
already been tested by NASA with strength exceeding 9,000lb for every 1-inch-wide strap.
Additionally, our habitat incorporates radiation
protection elements designed to provide passive radiation
shielding from environmental radiation for the crew. We
are leveraging the life support system as suggested by
ESA to provide radiation protection in the form of water
and hydrogen rich materials. The protection would be
located and attached to the inner layers of the inflatable
shell and include a liner with non-potable water. This
system would need to provide enough radiation
protection to achieve the allowable limits for one year of exposure on the lunar surface. The increased wall
thickness to accommodate the water protection becomes
an integral part of the life support system and is
maintained by the mechanical shafts located along the
primary structural columns.
The architectural and structural relationships between
rigid elements and composite enclosure also allows for
multiple configurations to be tailored for specialized
functions. The plans below show the internal layout of a
habitat that will be part of the early phase of the Moon
Village, thus is has all of the spaces necessary to house a
crew of four. As the settlement grows and more infrastructure is added, it is foreseen that the individual
modules can become specialized. For example, the early
modules can be converted to habitation only elements
and the science functions can be re-housed in a dedicated
laboratory space [17].
The design team has focused closely at the habitation,
radiation protection and thermal systems which are
affected to a large extent by the design of a high-
performance enclosure system. The habitation interface
is responsible for accommodating the crew and their
working, living and sleeping activities. This includes storage, the layout of programmed areas, food supplies,
clothing management systems, fire suppressant, hygiene
systems, housekeeping, workstations and other human
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 6 of 15
related functions. Principles driving these sub-systems
are derived from the human factors standards to
adequately incorporate already known constraints and
limitations.
One Moon includes four levels with varying areas and
volumes at each level, a result of the enclosures geometry
and articulated structure. The ground level houses all
EVA support and teleoperation stations for the crew to prepare and monitor surface activities (see Figure 5).
Additionally, this level interfaces with connection
adapters built into the shell. We also include a wardroom
& command control function. The second level includes
workstations, kitchen preparation, experimental
laboratories and the medical station. All functions on the
second level are contained within customized payload
rack systems that include a variety of features such as
compartments, working surfaces, translation aids,
lighting and storage areas. The third level is designed for
crew quarters and hygiene (see Figure 6). The crew accommodations come in two types, stacked units and
divided units. This provides multiple opportunities for
living conditions that are centralized and offer increased
radiation shielding by jacketing the crew quarters with
water. The fourth level includes hydroponic laboratories,
experimental food production and other experimental
labs. These additional programmatic elements provide
the crew with an ability to supplement food needs and
study biological systems.
It is important to emphasize radiation protection in
the design as it includes any system designed to protect the crew of environmental radiation and monitor that
these systems are working properly. Radiation protection
is primarily located at the enclosure including predictive
measuring technologies for identifying solar particle
events. The radiation protection shell technology in the
design is a key architectural driver which offers
advantages for increased volume and reduced mass. The
ongoing work in this area will result in advanced methods
of providing this feature by taking advantage of ISRU
resources and regolith based structures.
4. Life Support
Selecting the most optimal life support systems is
imperative to support future human activities starting
from human settling and living on the Moon. Considering
as a starting point a crew of four for long-term missions
up to 500 days though, any sustainable approach will be
based on an appropriate closed-loop strategy for life
support, to increase the usage level of resources, being
produced in-situ or not.
At an early stage of a Moon settlement, with maybe
regular rotations of a crew of only four, one may not consider yet going up to the on-site production of a
significant (typically 20% or more in mass) part of the
crew daily diet.
However, air revitalization, water-loop closure and
potentially production of a food complement would be
fully relevant. In that case, ultimate waste/loss in oxygen
and water could be compensated by processing of in-situ
available water resources.
Water, among the various metabolic consumables
needed by a human, is by far the heaviest part of the daily
bill: about 3 kg/day/crewmember as a minimum, and one may expect higher demand linked to hygiene – and
household-related uses [19]. Oxygen and food follow,
representing each about 1kg/ day/crewmember.
Waste water is mainly composed of habitat
condensates, water used for hygienic and household
purposes, all together the so-called “grey waters”, and
urine.
These various Life Support functions and associated
technologies are deeply investigated by Space Agencies
and their contractors/partners. In ESA, the visionary
approach lies in the controlled ecological concept of MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System
Alternative) (see Figure 6).
Figure 7. A schematic representation of the
MELiSSA loop (courtesy of the MELiSSA Foundation)
From this fully closed loop approach, specific Life
Support strategies and Life Support Systems architecture
can be tailored to a given human exploration scenario,
e.g. a Moon settlement, as described above (see Figure
7).
In the present context, when air revitalisation and
water-loop closure are the main drivers, it makes full
sense to envisage a smart combination of water treatment
technologies (membrane-based filtration, nitrification)
integrated with a photosynthetic reactor. And if the
photosynthetic reactor is colonised by a cyano-bacteria like Limnospira Indica (previously known as Arthospira
Platensis, commercially available as Spirulina), a food
complement, with a high protein content, can be
produced and incorporated in the crew diet: a first step
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 7 of 15
towards closure of carbon and nitrogen loops, on top of
oxygen and hydrogen ones. The modularity of the
proposed technologies will be an additional flexibility to
accommodate them in the multi-functional structural and
infrastructure concepts proposed here.
Figure 8. A schematic representation of the potential
Life Support System concept for the early stage of a
Moon settlement
5. Human Factors & Support Systems
Human performance factors are of key importance in our design which places an emphasis on volume, lighting,
floor area, privacy, intelligent interfaces and increased
degrees of freedom throughout the habitat spaces. One
Moon has a net habitable volume of up to 390 cubic
meters, habitable area of up to 104 square meters (see
Figure 9). Each program makes use of deployed volumes
by placing all integral rack systems at the perimeter up
against the inflated structural shell. This projection of the
program is what allows the central spaces to be free of
obstruction. The centralized zone is important for a
variety of factors including better control of ambient
lighting conditions, air movement and efficient recycling system locations, higher degrees of communication and
collaboration, promoting physical movement and high
visibility of working surfaces. Our approach to designing
habitats goes beyond technical requirements, infusing
methodology with architectural principles and
technologies across disciplines to arrive at a solution
distinct from those emerging in the established field of
habitat design. We aim to produce a highly integrated
system that minimizes mass, maximizes structural and
systems performance with the potential for adaptation as
future surface operations evolve. We are now in the final
stages of schematic design with the goal to begin testing
and building certain elements for validation in 2020 in
partnership with ESA and other potential contributions.
Ensuring human performance and incorporating considerations to optimize various human capabilities is
fundamental to providing an architectural solution which
considers human integration at both the system level and
individually. Human operation on the lunar environment
will be a difficult challenge for any individual no matter
how well trained and designing for activities that involve
humans will need to meet human factors, habitability and
environmental health standards provided by space
agencies. A holistic approach to designing for human
considerations has been optimized by looking closely at
a series of concepts of operations captured in varying schedules which are determined for each phase of the
Moon Village development. The concept of operations
for lunar activities informs the design of the habitat by
allowing spaces and functions to remain flexible while
not compromising the health and safety of all crew
members. For example, NASA’s STD-3001, Human
Centered Design Process states “Effective human-
centered design starts with a clear definition of human
activities, which flows down from the concept of
operations and anticipated scenarios, to more specific
analyses of tasks and to even more specific questions of allocation of roles and responsibilities between the
human and systems (where the term “systems” refers to
machines or automated systems)”. This is a philosophy
which we try to enhance though our parametric design
methodologies [20].
Characterizing the physical requirements which
embody this philosophy in design means identifying the
interfaces between humans and systems which control
and utilize the necessary resources for the activities
defined by each phase. A key factor is intelligent
interfaces which can be accessed independently and are
centralized, providing full control and visibility. The architectural design places an emphasis on this by
distributing the interfaces and systems at the perimeter
and giving all crew members direct line of sight at any
given moment for any occupied level. The solution also
places a major emphasis on increased volume necessary
for the crew to perform complex mission tasks and
simultaneous activities for collaboration. Volume is also
necessary for longer duration missions, which place
increased stress on behavioural health and degrees of
freedom. Another key concern are the illumination levels
to support the variety of intricate crew tasks. The level of detail associated with crew operations for scientific and
engineering tasks require a well calibrated lighting
conditions with the ability to provide immediate visibility
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 8 of 15
of essential equipment and control systems. We
investigated a series of design strategies that integrate
lighting for emergency, circadian entrainment, health,
level of control and circulation. Key lighting features are
embedded within the architectural surfaces to supply
essential and augmented lighting conditions.
Additionally, we also integrated a wide range of
requirements including configuration of equipment, translation paths, hatches, restraints and mobility aids,
windows and collaborative environmental considerations.
5. Resource Development
The polar regions of the Moon have been identified
as optimal locations for harnessing the power of the Sun
for longer duration than at any other location. Studies by
the Goldstone Solar System Radar (GSSR) group at JPL
using digital elevation models of the lunar south pole
indicate high levels of illumination near Shackleton Crater. The analysis looked at various sites showing that
the best sites are on the rim of Shackleton Crater and
specifically along the western ridge where three sites
have a multiyear average solar illumination between 90
and 97% and visibility of the entire Earth about 51% of
each month. These sites on the western ridge also have
100% solar power generation capacity for 85 to 91% of
the year. [21]. Using this study and ephemeris data we
were able to identify potential sites for large scale
development requiring the highest potential for energy,
communications and resource development. Harnessing this near continuous sunlight means that an architectural
array of solar panels much be designed with a vertical
configuration and placed at altitudes where the
surrounding topography does not cast shadows on the
solar arrays. The potential energy capture could provide
power to habitats, mobility, robotic equipment and ISRU
operations.
There are also permanently shaded regions at the
poles, deep inside the existing craters where water-ice
exists from comet depositions. Surveys of the polar
regions provide enough evidence to support the idea that
enough water in the form of ice exists to support future human activities [22]. Lunar rocks are made up of
minerals and glasses. Exposed rocks on the lunar surface
are covered with impact craters whose diameters range
from more than 1000 km to less than 1 μm. The
impacting objects range from asteroids tens of kilometres
in diameter to particles of cosmic dust a few hundred
angstroms across, a range higher than 12 orders of
magnitude. The effects on bedrock have resulted in
excavation of craters, followed by shattering,
pulverization, melting, mixing, and dispersal of the
original coherent bedrock to various locations in and around the cratered regions. The process of lunar regolith
formation can be divided roughly into two phases. The
first phase is after some bedrock is exposed and regolith
is thin (less than a few centimetres), when impacts can
still penetrate the regolith and excavate bedrock. The
second phase is reached when thickness of the regolith
has increased to the point that impacts only disturb and
mix the regolith already present, increasing thickness
over time.
An assessment and surveying of local building
materials begins first with characterization and then a functional approach. There will need to be a
classification of materials that can naturally support
design features such as tensile reinforcement, high-
strength building foundations and radiation shielding.
After this classification is established, equipment would
need to be designed and engineered for handling,
beneficiation and extraction of necessary elements (such
as aluminium or titanium). By identifying types of
products and cataloguing their uses and performance
metrics, a wide range of architectural possibilities can be
achieved. Concurrently with industrial extraction processes and architectural design, it will be possible to
to enable optimization and life cycle analysis for
extracting natural resources and processing them for
oxygen and water extraction [23], construction and
manufacturing needs [24]. These construction needs
would manifest in the form of disciplines that are directly
linked to functional elements.
Table 2. ISRU Disciplines for Construction
Discipline Element Function
Granular
Mechanics
Berm Thermal
Protection
Regolith
Handling
Landing Pads Radiation
Protection
Civil Engineering &
Construction
Roads Structural Reinforcement
Regolith
Transport
Shelters Lander Plume
Shielding, Dust
Mitigation
Autonomous
Manufacturing
Reinforcement
Structures
Micro-
Meteoroid
Protection
Resource
Processing &
Production
Modular
Structures
Habitation
Robotic Tele-
Operation
Shell Structures Infrastructure
The goal would be to enable a technical assessment
and ranking of mineral processing options and requirements, which could then be compared to
anticipated performance characteristics for constructed
materials. Extraction of lunar surface material can be
viewed as a component of an integrated solution that can
address multiple goals and deliver architectural solutions
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 9 of 15
to some of the most challenging environmental
constraints while also developing methods for future
planetary construction paradigms.
Computational design provides a unique platform for
the development, integration, and implementation of
lunar surface habitats. A detailed survey of the local
terrain would be conducted to produce a highly detailed
model for design and verification. A detailed digital analogue of the local area would provide the design and
engineering methodology with a tool for extensive civil
planning (excavation, levelling, collecting, constructing).
During the integration process, the physical parameters
and constraints associated with environmental conditions
would be directly associated with a design to
manufacturing method, where designed elements are
optimized per function (berms, support pads, roads,
structural reinforcement, shelters, etc.) to reduce cost,
increase performance and optimize construction time.
This would be an iterative procedure making use of parametric and digital automation at varying scales for
primary, secondary and tertiary structural and functional
elements. Finally, the implementation of designed
elements would be contained in a repository organized
into products and parts for each discipline (architecture,
engineering, civil and operations) for modification and
coordination efforts. A data management system for
construction would allow logistical management,
improvements and workarounds to take effect at various
stages in the process. Computational tools are of key
interest and mature methods which have been proven in the architecture, engineering and construction industry in
highly complex building scenarios and would be
essential in solving engineering challenges where
teleoperations would play a major role.
Regolith based additive manufacturing in a reduced
gravity environment allows us to push the limits of
structural performance using new material processes. In
this case additive manufacturing techniques can be
applied together with digital design methods to produce
unconventional structural solutions. These solutions are
then calibrated for efficiency using analytical methods
such as finite element analysis, topology optimization and energy deposition simulation. By leveraging these
analytical methods and a single digital design model, the
engineering and safety factors can be addressed using
analysis to target adequate material densities for
structural loads and radiation shielding. Some of the
analytical methods would include finite element analysis
and topology optimization. These methods simulate the
effects of real-world forces, loads, temperatures,
velocities, displacements, pressures and structural
properties. Bringing a high level of external information
into the initial design stages would lead to minimized
redundancies and the discovery of potential solutions not
readily available using conventional design approaches.
Using customized analytical tools globally and locally
for designed elements, would yield strategies for making
the manufacturing and fabrication process more efficient.
Understanding the limitations of regolith materials using computationally intensive processes allows us to push the
limits of manufacturing in a constrained environment.
Although the analytical techniques proposed here may be
unfamiliar to aeronautical engineers, they are similar to
the methodologies and tools currently in use for state-of-
the-art architectural design, as practiced at SOM
We proposed multiple shell type structures that
prioritize safety, functionality and performance. Shell
structures are meant to be used for multiple purposes
such as servicing large equipment and working in a
protected environment that shields from high exposure to radiation. The shells are designed with a minimum of
500mm wall that is constructed from processed regolith
and sintered using additive manufacturing with direct
energy deposition techniques. The largest shell structures
would span approximately 30 meters, allowing vehicular
and storage equipment to be securely stored. Preliminary
studies of these shell structures resulted occupiable
volumes of up to 1,815 m3. To economize material and
energy, the shells vary in width between 1000mm to
500mm, with larger thicknesses at the base. Smaller
shells would need to be designed for shielded, enclosed and pressurized conditions. Preliminary studies of these
smaller shells span approximately 20 meters and include
heights of up to 9.8 meters. Results have produced
occupiable volumes of about 1,500 m3. In-situ
construction can be utilized to produce a wide range of
functional architectures that advance surface
construction capabilities and produce solutions to
multiple uses for a large-scale development (see Figure
10). Each shell structure is designed using finite element
analysis and optimization methods. The possibilities for
constructing highly functional shell structures using
techniques which will be advanced on the Moon are already being tested in terrestrial applications and will
pave the way for even larger surface construction
techniques on extra planetary surfaces.
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 10 of 15
Figure 1. Earth View. View of Earth rise from the rim of Shackleton Crater..
Figure 2. Master Plan view. View of Moon Village development.
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 11 of 15
Figure 3. Pre-flight view. The vertical habitat packaged before launch.
Figure 4. Habitat interior view. Working space and labs.
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 12 of 15
Figure 5. Plans. 1st & 2nd Level.
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 13 of 15
Figure 6. Plans. 2nd & 3rd Level.
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 14 of 15
Figure 9. Habitat System Calculations. Axonometric
Figure 10. Moon Village Development & ISRU Construction. Aerial View
70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, DC 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright ©2019 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
IAC-19-D4.1.2 Page 15 of 15
References
[1] Wörner, J., ESA Director General Jan Wörner Meets
the Press, International Astronautical Federation Global
Networking Forum, 66th International Astronautical Congress, 13 October 2015.
[2] Sherwood, Brent (2016 July). “Space Architecture
for MoonVillage” (ICES-2016-049). 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), Vienna,
Austria, 10-14 July 2016.
[3] Nozette, S., et al., “The Clementine bistatic radar experiment”, Science, 274, No. 5292, 1495-1498, Nov.
1996.
[4] Crotts, Arlin. “Water on The Moon, I. Historical Overview”, Astronomical Review, 6:7, 4-20, DOI:
10.1080/21672857.2011.11519687
[5] Close Clark, B 2003, 'Ebenezer Howard and the marriage of town and country', Archives of Organizational
and Environmental Literature, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87–97
[6] Curtis, William, Modern Architecture Since 1900 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 1996. ISBN 013-232273-0.
[7] Petrov, Georgi I., Daniel Inocente, Max Haney, Neil
Katz, Colin Koop, Advenit Makaya, Marlies Arnhof, Hanna
Lakk , Aidan Cowley, Claudie Haignere, Piero Messina, Valentina Sumini, Jeffrey A. Hoffman, "Moon Village
Reference Masterplan and Habitat Design" ICES 2019-280, Proceedings of the 49th International Conference on
Environmental Systems (ICES), Boston, MA, 07-14 July 2019.
[8] Stoff, Joshua. (2004) Building Moonships: The
Grumman Lunar Module. ISBN 0-7385-3586-9
[9] Cohen, Marc, and Kriss J. Kennedy, “Habitats and Surface Construction Technology and Development
Roadmap,” Presented to the AIAA Structures Technical Committee, September 4, 1997, Hampton, VA.
[10] Cohen, M. M., and Benaroya, H., “Lunar-Base
Structures,” Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture, edited by A. S. Howe and B. Sherwood,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2009, Chapter 15, pp. 179–204.
[11] Stafford P. Thomas, “America at the Threshold: Report of the Synthesis Group on Americas Space
Exploration Initiative, 1 June 1991
[12] Sumini, V., Mueller, C., “Structural Challenges for
Space Architecture”, Structure Magazine, Dec. 2017, pp. 42.
[13] Adams, Constance, and Georgi Petrov. “Variants
on the TransHab Paradigm (2): The Surface Endoskeletal
Inflatable Module (SEIM)” (SAE 2005-01-2847). 35th International Conference on Environmental Systems
(ICES), Rome, Italy, 11-14 July 2005.
[14] Adams, C.M. “TransHab Schematic Design Phase-Design Evaluation and Trade Study: Human Factors,
Ergonomics and Anthropometry.” Lockheed Martin Space Mission Systems and Services Report LMSMSS-32618,
Houston, TX, Oct. 1997.
[15] Kennedy, Kriss, “Lessons from TransHab: An Architects Experience” AIAA Space Architecture
Symposium, 10-11 October 2002, Houston, Texas, AIAA 2002-6105.
[16] Haines, Richard, “Windows: Their Importance and
Function in Confining Environments”, Ch.31 in From
Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement. Harrison, A., Clearwater, McKay. Ed,
Springer. 1991.
[17] Sherwood, B., “Module Architecture for In Situ Space Laboratories,” AIAA 2010-6048, Proceedings of 40th
International Conference on Environmental Systems, Barcelona, July 2010.
[18] NASA “NASA Space Flight Human System
Standard”, Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health, Feb. 2015.
[19] Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions
Document, NASA/TP-2015-218570/Rev1, January 2018
[20] Stroud, K., Pickett, L., Tillman, B., NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH): Revitalization of
Space-Related Human Factors, Environmental, and Habitability Data and Design Guidance, NASA, 2008.
[21] Li, Shuai, et al. "Direct evidence of surface exposed
water ice in the lunar polar regions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.36 (2018): 8907-8912.
[22] Schlüter, Lukas, and Cowley Aidan. "Review of
Techniques for In-Situ Oxygen Extraction on the Moon." Planetary and Space Science (2019): 104753.
[23] Naser, M.Z., “Extraterrestrial construction materials”, Progress in Materials Science Volume 105,
August 2019, 100577